|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: Which is why so many people hate it. I would say fear would be more apt a description than hate. These people fear the increasing agency of women. They fear a loss of control, as women gain more control over their own lives and decisions.
LazarX wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm gonna have to look into it further one of these days, but I've never been particularly impressed with Sammy-boy.
You have to hand it to him though. He was the first President to have an assassination attempt on him, and the Secret Service had to rescue the Assassin from death by caning. Wait... when was Samuel Adams -- the guy who, pre-revolution, refused to use soap because of the British tax on it -- ever elected president?
He does brew a pretty nice Stock Ale, though.
I liked it when the picture of Sam Adams on the label switched from a pose of stately contemplation to the one where he's sloppin' suds all over the tavern table. the first picure looked romanticized, but I have no trouble whatsoever believing that guy in the second refused to use soap.
Pfftt. The Adamses were pikers.
TR gave an impassioned ninety minute stump speech after being shot in the chest by an assassin whose life TR then saved from the mob who was in the process of beating him to death.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Man, I'm just gonna open my own restaurant, and then I'm gonna found a religion where the restaurant owner shows his piety by [redacted] all the waitresses' [redacted] with his [redacted]. I've been waiting for this opportunity all my life!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Oooh.
I wonder if the usual right wing blowhards who are praising this ruling as defending freedom of religion realise that it enables Sharia law.
Krensky wrote: Oooh.
I wonder if the usual right wing blowhards who are praising this ruling as defending freedom of religion realise that it enables Sharia law.
Don't be silly. It's only going to enable what the SC wants to enable. And that's not going to include Sharia.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Supreme Court 2014: The only freedom that matters is mine. :P
thejeff wrote: I get you think that the master knows best and should speak for everyone under him, but I think that's crap. Never said that. I don't think you understand the situation. Let me help. Ask yourself this question:
Does the person in congress you voted for "know best" and "speak for you" effectively?
I'm guessing not, at least some of the time, and it was likely little different in the post-American Revolution days.
thejeff wrote: The system involved fighting the bloodiest war in history (at the time)? And you call that a success? Indeed! A southerner can walk the streets of New England unaccosted (at least to the same degree a New Englander can) and vice versa. We patched things up nicely - i.e. the system worked.
Perfect? No.
Worked? Yes.
See below for just a few places that don't work.
thejeff wrote: What the hell would the system failing have looked like? You're too easy! Answer: Afghanistan or Sudan or Honduras or Gaza or...
thejeff wrote: You're speaking of a time when life was a grinding hell for the vast majority, regardless of the choices they made. And that's true for a majority of the world's population today. What's your point?
thejeff wrote: What about the ones who don't relax, but look for work and can't find any? Which isn't unlikely in a major downturn or even a local mass firing. Yeah, it took my uncle 4 months and another 3-5 years after that until he had pay+benefits parity to the job that went to China. But the other guys? Who knows how long it would have taken them. They took an 18 month vacation instead.
meatrace wrote: Similarly, in an autocracy/monarchy 100% of citizens are represented by their king!
But seriously, representation is determined by ability to vote. Women, poor and nonwhites couldn't vote and thus were not represented. If representation meant as you define, colonists were represented in parliament.
The king does most certainly not represent the citizens. The king represents his interests and that may sometimes coincide with the interests of the people (cf. the movie The King's Speech) but usually not.
Circa 1800 I can assure you plenty of poor were represented as they were able to vote (duh). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if proportionally more poor were represented then as now due to the high literacy rate, relative lack of stigma associated with being poor, and greater importance of the social contract for being a contributing citizen.
Also, "nonwhite" households each had a vote if they were free landholders... Silly old bear :)
Quark Blast wrote: meatrace wrote: Similarly, in an autocracy/monarchy 100% of citizens are represented by their king!
But seriously, representation is determined by ability to vote. Women, poor and nonwhites couldn't vote and thus were not represented. If representation meant as you define, colonists were represented in parliament.
The king does most certainly not represent the citizens. The king represents his interests and that may sometimes coincide with the interests of the people (cf. the movie The King's Speech) but usually not.
The head of household does most certainly not represent those living in his house. He represents his interests and that may sometimes coincide with the interests of the people living with him, but often not.
More often when it comes to his male children. Somewhat less so when it comes to his wife and female relatives. Very rarely when it comes to servants or tenants and of course not at all when it comes to slaves.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: I get you think that the master knows best and should speak for everyone under him, but I think that's crap. Never said that. I don't think you understand the situation. Let me help. Ask yourself this question:
Does the person in congress you voted for "know best" and "speak for you" effectively?
I'm guessing not, at least some of the time, and it was likely little different in the post-American Revolution days.
thejeff wrote: The system involved fighting the bloodiest war in history (at the time)? And you call that a success? Indeed! A southerner can walk the streets of New England unaccosted (at least to the same degree a New Englander can) and vice versa. We patched things up nicely - i.e. the system worked.
Perfect? No.
Worked? Yes.
See below for just a few places that don't work.
thejeff wrote: What the hell would the system failing have looked like? You're too easy! Answer: Afghanistan or Sudan or Honduras or Gaza or...
By those standards, this wonderful system they put in place is roughly the same as any dictatorship in the history of the world.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: You're speaking of a time when life was a grinding hell for the vast majority, regardless of the choices they made. And that's true for a majority of the world's population today. What's your point? That you keep talking about all the advantages of it over what we have here today. It sounds like you want to go back to those conditions. Or at least, that's the direction the changes you want will lead us, whether you want to or not.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: What about the ones who don't relax, but look for work and can't find any? Which isn't unlikely in a major downturn or even a local mass firing. Yeah, it took my uncle 4 months and another 3-5 years after that until he had pay+benefits parity to the job that went to China. But the other guys? Who knows how long it would have taken them. They took an 18 month vacation instead.
Obviously they, and your uncle, shouldn't have gotten any help or benefits during even those 4 months. If that means they lose the house or starve, well, that's what shelters and soup kitchens are for.
Quark Blast wrote: meatrace wrote: Similarly, in an autocracy/monarchy 100% of citizens are represented by their king!
But seriously, representation is determined by ability to vote. Women, poor and nonwhites couldn't vote and thus were not represented. If representation meant as you define, colonists were represented in parliament.
The king does most certainly not represent the citizens. The king represents his interests and that may sometimes coincide with the interests of the people (cf. the movie The King's Speech) but usually not.
Circa 1800 I can assure you plenty of poor were represented as they were able to vote (duh). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if proportionally more poor were represented then as now due to the high literacy rate, relative lack of stigma associated with being poor, and greater importance of the social contract for being a contributing citizen.
Also, "nonwhite" households each had a vote if they were free landholders... Silly old bear :) Oh, OK. Trolling then.
BigDTBone wrote: Quark Blast wrote: meatrace wrote: Similarly, in an autocracy/monarchy 100% of citizens are represented by their king!
But seriously, representation is determined by ability to vote. Women, poor and nonwhites couldn't vote and thus were not represented. If representation meant as you define, colonists were represented in parliament.
The king does most certainly not represent the citizens. The king represents his interests and that may sometimes coincide with the interests of the people (cf. the movie The King's Speech) but usually not.
Circa 1800 I can assure you plenty of poor were represented as they were able to vote (duh). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if proportionally more poor were represented then as now due to the high literacy rate, relative lack of stigma associated with being poor, and greater importance of the social contract for being a contributing citizen.
Also, "nonwhite" households each had a vote if they were free landholders... Silly old bear :) Oh, OK. Trolling then. Poe's Law.
thejeff wrote: BigDTBone wrote: Quark Blast wrote: meatrace wrote: Similarly, in an autocracy/monarchy 100% of citizens are represented by their king!
But seriously, representation is determined by ability to vote. Women, poor and nonwhites couldn't vote and thus were not represented. If representation meant as you define, colonists were represented in parliament.
The king does most certainly not represent the citizens. The king represents his interests and that may sometimes coincide with the interests of the people (cf. the movie The King's Speech) but usually not.
Circa 1800 I can assure you plenty of poor were represented as they were able to vote (duh). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if proportionally more poor were represented then as now due to the high literacy rate, relative lack of stigma associated with being poor, and greater importance of the social contract for being a contributing citizen.
Also, "nonwhite" households each had a vote if they were free landholders... Silly old bear :) Oh, OK. Trolling then. Poe's Law. Which is why I directly asked about his intentions. The lack of response pretty well sealed it.
BigDTBone wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Also, "nonwhite" households each had a vote if they were free landholders... Silly old bear :)
Oh, OK. Trolling then. Yeah. I started typing in a response to the bit about the Civil War being an example of the system working, then realized that we were being trolled. :)
Almost got me, though.
Hmmm.
Well, I don't have a position on whether you guys are being trolled or not, but I do remember in a thread about gun control after being berated by Comrade X about a lack of giving a shiznit about the Founding Plutocrats coming across an article which averred that there were states that had allowed blacks and women who met the property qualifications to vote, but then took voting rights away from those groups when they introduced universal white male suffrage.
[Whistles the theme song to Team America: World Police]
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Hmmm.
Well, I don't have a position on whether you guys are being trolled or not, but I do remember in a thread about gun control after being berated by Comrade X about a lack of giving a shiznit about the Founding Plutocrats coming across an article which averred that there were states that had allowed blacks and women who met the property qualifications to vote, but then took voting rights away from those groups when they introduced universal white male suffrage.
[Whistles the theme song to Team America: World Police]
Yeah, the states had different voting rights at first. I don't think there was any direct tie between removing the rights of women or non-whites to vote and removing the property requirement. It's not even clear to me that all states in fact did so, at least for non-whites. Though the rules may have been different (only dropped property requirement for whites?) and the franchise may have been more theoretical than actual.
My bad. It was in a thread about Detroit.
But here's the article. It only mentions three states, but in two of them it sounds like there was a direct link.
The Expansion of the Vote: A White Man's Democracy
You guys keep confusing the day-to-day political functions of the first 150 years (+-) of this country with the political system.
All those functions you guys rightly deride (slavery, one representative/household, etc) were all fixed using the political system that the FFs set up.
It took 150 years (+-); the American Civil War bloody well sucked; etc.; But, using the system, things got better.
Today (~1965 to the present) however things are headed in the opposite direction. Are they as bad as slavery? No, I never said nor implied that. Could they get that bad again? Possibly, given the current political climate.
Ostensibly this thread is about SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby but that issue is merely a symptom of what's gone wrong. Like my uncle's former coworkers who took a completely sanctioned 18-month "vacation" at the government's (i.e. taxpayers') expense. Just a symptom.
Circa 1800 these types of stupidity would not have been possible and, to the extent equally stupid things were happening then, there was a process to steer the ship onto the right (or at least a better) course.
To continue the metaphor - our ship of state has nearly lost its rudder. SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby barely rates mention given the real problems this country faces.
Here's how my political sensibilities were awoken:
When Obama was just a senator I was hang'n with my cousins at my aforementioned uncle's house. The senator was on TV saying something to the effect that;
"If the president can say, 'Make me a prison at Guantanamo', and it gets built, then the president can say, 'Close that prison', and just as easily it will be closed down."
My uncle laughed out loud, and if you know my uncle you would know how loud that was. As such he had our attention and one of my cousins asked his dad, "What's so funny?" My uncle replied, pointing to the TV, "He wishes the president had that much power".
My cousins and I - "Huh?"
oo
_\
Of course now I understand what my uncle found to be so funny. Obama was talking smack with a straight face. Just like Romney, Cheney, Clinton, and almost all rest continuously do. They covet power and spew the most ridiculous "facts" to buoy their imaginings.
Today, as a nation, we are a facile population that actively does not want the depth of discussion that Lincoln and Douglas engaged in for hours at a time.
As a nation, if its not amusing we do not vote for it. And people with money, and those who covet power, will continue to make sure the voters are amused.
Quark Blast wrote: You guys keep confusing the day-to-day political functions of the first 150 years (+-) of this country with the political system. Do you have some dictionary of political science definition you're using for this or are you deriding people for not using the stuff you came up with?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You guys keep confusing the day-to-day political functions of the first 150 years (+-) of this country with the political system. Do you have some dictionary of political science definition you're using for this or are you deriding people for not using the stuff you came up with? I don't know, but apparently his definition of "political system" includes civil wars.
thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You guys keep confusing the day-to-day political functions of the first 150 years (+-) of this country with the political system. Do you have some dictionary of political science definition you're using for this or are you deriding people for not using the stuff you came up with? I don't know, but apparently his definition of "political system" includes civil wars. Hey, it worked for the Romans.
thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You guys keep confusing the day-to-day political functions of the first 150 years (+-) of this country with the political system. Do you have some dictionary of political science definition you're using for this or are you deriding people for not using the stuff you came up with? I don't know, but apparently his definition of "political system" includes civil wars. Our political system was able to absorb the shock of the American Civil War. Most political systems cannot do that.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You guys keep confusing the day-to-day political functions of the first 150 years (+-) of this country with the political system. Do you have some dictionary of political science definition you're using for this or are you deriding people for not using the stuff you came up with? I don't know, but apparently his definition of "political system" includes civil wars. Our political system was able to absorb the shock of the American Civil War. Most political systems cannot do that. Feudal monarchies have survived civil wars. Empires have survived civil wars.
Obviously none dealt with the American Civil War. OTOH, no political system has ever failed to absorb the shock of the American Civil War either. Given a single event, it's impossible to tell why it was able to continue. Whether that resilience was inherent in the system or a result of the unique circumstances. There's probably a better argument that the political system (and the compromises made to create) brought about the Civil War.
But let's accept that and go back to your larger point: What happened in the 60s, especially in terms of voting since that was where you started, that is now threatening to destroy such a robust system?
Can a system that could absorb the shock of the American Civil War, really not absorb the shock of actually letting black people vote?
Quark Blast wrote:
Our political system was able to absorb the shock of the American Civil War. Most political systems cannot do that.
By changing fairly radically and setting us on the path to a much more centralized government and the Imperial Presidency. That was not part of the system as designed.
Quark Blast wrote: Ostensibly this thread is about SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby but that issue is merely a symptom of what's gone wrong. Like my uncle's former coworkers who took a completely sanctioned 18-month "vacation" at the government's (i.e. taxpayers') expense. Just a symptom.
Circa 1800 these types of stupidity would not have been possible and, to the extent equally stupid things were happening then, there was a process to steer the ship onto the right (or at least a better) course.
To continue the metaphor - our ship of state has nearly lost its rudder. SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby barely rates mention given the real problems this country faces.
Since you mentioned HL again and since that's what this thread is ostensibly about, I've lost track of your take on it?
From the other arguments you've made I assume you agree with the decision, but not the reasoning? That government shouldn't be mandating reproductive health care be covered in the first place.
Which is pretty much the same argument everyone else on that side in this thread has made. I'm still looking for someone to agree that government should be able to mandate such care, but not if a company has religious objections.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Which is pretty much the same argument everyone else on that side in this thread has made. I'm still looking for someone to agree that government should be able to mandate such care, but not if a company has religious objections.
You'll find five of them in the Supreme Court.
LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote:
Which is pretty much the same argument everyone else on that side in this thread has made. I'm still looking for someone to agree that government should be able to mandate such care, but not if a company has religious objections.
You'll find five of them in the Supreme Court. Well, yeah. They'll argue that, though I'm not sure they actually think it or even think that it's good law.
But I was really referring to someone around here defending the decision.
thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote:
Which is pretty much the same argument everyone else on that side in this thread has made. I'm still looking for someone to agree that government should be able to mandate such care, but not if a company has religious objections.
You'll find five of them in the Supreme Court. Well, yeah. They'll argue that, though I'm not sure they actually think it or even think that it's good law.
But I was really referring to someone around here defending the decision. I'm wondering if they really believe it or if it was a way for them to legally call out Obama on what could have been argued to be a double-standard.
MagusJanus wrote: thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote:
Which is pretty much the same argument everyone else on that side in this thread has made. I'm still looking for someone to agree that government should be able to mandate such care, but not if a company has religious objections.
You'll find five of them in the Supreme Court. Well, yeah. They'll argue that, though I'm not sure they actually think it or even think that it's good law.
But I was really referring to someone around here defending the decision. I'm wondering if they really believe it or if it was a way for them to legally call out Obama on what could have been argued to be a double-standard. Or just a way to slap down some regulation they didn't like, combined with a slap at women and at birth control.
thejeff wrote: MagusJanus wrote: thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote:
Which is pretty much the same argument everyone else on that side in this thread has made. I'm still looking for someone to agree that government should be able to mandate such care, but not if a company has religious objections.
You'll find five of them in the Supreme Court. Well, yeah. They'll argue that, though I'm not sure they actually think it or even think that it's good law.
But I was really referring to someone around here defending the decision. I'm wondering if they really believe it or if it was a way for them to legally call out Obama on what could have been argued to be a double-standard. Or just a way to slap down some regulation they didn't like, combined with a slap at women and at birth control. That wouldn't surprise me in the least. I've been hearing about American courts beginning to turn against women. And the Supreme Court has never been neutral in position.
thejeff wrote: Feudal monarchies have survived civil wars. Empires have survived civil wars.
Obviously none dealt with the American Civil War. OTOH, no political system has ever failed to absorb the shock of the American Civil War either. Given a single event, it's impossible to tell why it was able to continue. Whether that resilience was inherent in the system or a result of the unique circumstances. There's probably a better argument that the political system (and the compromises made to create) brought about the Civil War.
But let's accept that and go back to your larger point: What happened in the 60s, especially in terms of voting since that was where you started, that is now threatening to destroy such a robust system?
Can a system that could absorb the shock of the American Civil War, really not absorb the shock of actually letting black people vote?
To your 1st point - Yes, but the American Civil War ended and the system worked to patch things up rather nicely. Granted it took another 100 years to iron out the wrinkles but all that was done using the system.
As I said previously; A Southerner is as safe on a New England street as any native New Englander. From a historical perspective that's quite remarkable. I then named a number of places around the globe where results like ours seem virtually impossible.
What happened in the 1960's - Usagi Yojimbo outlines it. It has nothing to do with your (troll-like) implication that black people can vote.
Starting in the 1960's, sometime after the Civil Rights Act was passed [having nothing to do with Constitutional Civil Rights], lawmakers and others in power began dismantling the social contract expressed and implied by the FFs in various documents - the Declaration, the Constitution + Amendments, the Federalist Papers, etc.
I said previously that what the FF got blatantly wrong was the belief that, through liberal public education, everyone can be brought to parity. Ignoring unending proof of this falsehood our "public servants" are now, by law, beginning to dismantle the social contract that has worked so well over the previous 160+ years.
What my uncle's former coworkers - publicly and unashamedly - got away with is anathema to the social contract set up by the FFs.
Act like they did circa 1800 and you'd be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
Now, you can make another troll-like comment that I am advocating a return to tar and feathering but what I'm arguing for is a return to the social contract. That a citizen would be so ashamed of acting like my uncle's former coworkers that the idea of taking an "18-month vacation on the government" simply would not occur to them in the first place.
However, that correction seems less and less likely to happen. And if my prognostication proves correct, we will run this country into the ground in a generation or two.
The occasion of my uncle's laughter I outlined previously is just one small consequence of this dismantling of the social contract. And it's worth repeating the lesson here, with slightly different emphasis, since you ignored it entirely in your last two responses.
Of course now I understand what my uncle found to be so funny. Obama was talking smack with a straight face. Just like Romney, Cheney, Clinton, and almost all the rest continuously do. They covet power and spew the most ridiculous "facts" to buoy their imaginings.
Today, as a nation, we are a facile population that actively does not want the depth of discussion that Lincoln and Douglas engaged in for hours at a time.
As a nation, if its not amusing we do not vote for it. And people with money, and those who covet power, will continue to make sure the voters are amused.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You do realize your uncle and his friends paid into unemployment while they were employed, right? And then, after they lost their job through no fault of their own, reaped the benefits of unemployment insurance. Their situation would not have happened in the 1800s because after they lost their job, they would have starved and died penniless in the streets. Their families too. Their foreclosed homes would have brought down everyone's property value and the local stores would have all closed because no one had money to buy things. That's what you want to go back to? I don't think you know what a social contract is.
Quark Blast wrote:
What happened in the 1960's - Usagi Yojimbo outlines it. It has nothing to do with your (troll-like) implication that black people can vote.
Starting in the 1960's, sometime after the Civil Rights Act was passed [having nothing to do with Constitutional Civil Rights], lawmakers and others in power began dismantling the social contract expressed and implied by the FFs in various documents - the Declaration, the Constitution + Amendments, the Federalist Papers, etc.
Usagi Yojimbo's only recent comment refers to changes after/during the Civil War. The 1860s, not the 1960s.
Unemployment insurance has been around since the 30s, as has Social Security and most of our other welfare programs (in one form or another). The only major addition in the 60s was Medicare/Medicaid.
So what are you talking about?
What did the lawmakers and others in power actually do in the 1960s to begin dismantling the social contract?
I keep making those troll-like implications because I can't think of anything else you could be talking about. Especially when you started this with Quote: Our system of government started to lose effectiveness (slip into Democracy) in the 1960's. and Quote: By law, anyone can vote regardless of ability to hear and understand the issues on the ballot. Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of?
Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about?
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
What happened in the 1960's - Usagi Yojimbo outlines it. It has nothing to do with your (troll-like) implication that black people can vote.
Starting in the 1960's, sometime after the Civil Rights Act was passed [having nothing to do with Constitutional Civil Rights], lawmakers and others in power began dismantling the social contract expressed and implied by the FFs in various documents - the Declaration, the Constitution + Amendments, the Federalist Papers, etc.
Usagi Yojimbo's only recent comment refers to changes after/during the Civil War. The 1860s, not the 1960s.
Unemployment insurance has been around since the 30s, as has Social Security and most of our other welfare programs (in one form or another). The only major addition in the 60s was Medicare/Medicaid.
So what are you talking about?
What did the lawmakers and others in power actually do in the 1960s to begin dismantling the social contract?
I keep making those troll-like implications because I can't think of anything else you could be talking about. Especially when you started this with Quote: Our system of government started to lose effectiveness (slip into Democracy) in the 1960's. and Quote: By law, anyone can vote regardless of ability to hear and understand the issues on the ballot. Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of?
Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about? You're feeding it. It only lives if you feed it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: By law, anyone can vote regardless of ability to hear and understand the issues on the ballot. Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of?
Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about? Well, that is why m'lord Dice won't recognize democracy, rather than plutocracy, as the sanctioned system of government within the bounds of Demesne Dice: The lower classes always vote for the wrong people! And until they can learn to vote the right way, that just undermines the whole system.
thejeff wrote: Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of?
Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about?
Clearly he means the enfranchisement of residents of Washington DC in presidential elections.
I suppose he could also be getting his decades wrong and is thinking of the extension of voting franchise to those damn kids in the '70s.
Krensky wrote: thejeff wrote: Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of?
Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about?
Clearly he means the enfranchisement of residents of Washington DC in presidential elections.
I suppose he could also be getting his decades wrong and is thinking of the extension of voting franchise to those damn kids in the '70s. Voting Rights Act was 1965. That was the most significant change. Basically "The 14th and 15th Amendments? We were serious about those." Big changes , especially in the Deep South.
Usagi Yojimbo wrote: Krensky wrote: thejeff wrote: Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of?
Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about?
Clearly he means the enfranchisement of residents of Washington DC in presidential elections.
I suppose he could also be getting his decades wrong and is thinking of the extension of voting franchise to those damn kids in the '70s. Voting Rights Act was 1965. That was the most significant change. Basically "The 14th and 15th Amendments? We were serious about those." Big changes , especially in the Deep South. Exactly. But I'm trolling by pointing that out. So obviously he must be talking about something else. Right?
The other side effect that helped to turn a lot of people against various social/safety net/welfare programs was that black people started to be able to take advantage of them. This let them be demonized as something "other people" got, not as something you might need.
BigDTBone wrote: You're feeding it. It only lives if you feed it. Ha! :D
Of course by saying that you are "feeding" no less than thejeff is. Just say'n.
Quark Blast wrote:
To your 1st point - Yes, but the American Civil War ended and the system worked to patch things up rather nicely. Granted it took another 100 years to iron out the wrinkles but all that was done using the system.
It's amusing that you place the blame at ~1965 and completely fail to realize that it's 1865 is when the problem you're talking about started. The Civil War is the creation of the nanny state in which the former structure of the social contract is broken and the one which you complain about is begun.
Then of course, you're also ignoring the period where most of these reforms that actually contributed to your Uncle's paid vacation, 1900-1920. Again, well before your estimation of 1960's as the problem. The first two decades of the 20th century is when the government started to come in and mandate how companies treated workers. It was this attitude that made unemployment and similar programs possible during the depression era and later.
The problems you are attributing to this go back much deeper and further than your current explanation.
There's another phenomenon in historical analysis you're falling victim to, but I don't want to mention it for fear of clouding the issue. Cause it would.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: You do realize your uncle and his friends paid into unemployment while they were employed, right? My uncle found a job within 4 months (may have been within 3, I could ask if you care?).
Many of the "vacationers" could have too. Not only did they not try but they had no shame in their behavior. They didn't give it their best shot and then get frustrated after 20 or 30 weeks. I would not be surprised if some of them are still on the dole.
Unemployment insurance is not license to take a year-point-five vacation at government expense. Spin it however you want to make yourself feel good though. Social contract be darned.
Quark Blast wrote: Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: You do realize your uncle and his friends paid into unemployment while they were employed, right? My uncle found a job within 4 months (may have been within 3, I could ask if you care?).
Many of the "vacationers" could have too. Not only did they not try but they had no shame in their behavior. They didn't give it their best shot and then get frustrated after 20 or 30 weeks. I would not be surprised if some of them are still on the dole.
Unemployment insurance is not license to take a year-point-five vacation at government expense. Spin it however you want to make yourself feel good though. Social contract be darned.
My brother was one of those, would not try to get a job until the free money ended
At risk of sounding harsh, did NOBODY see this coming? This was the ENTIRE POINT of socialized medicine - that someone else pays for it and that same someone gets to make the decisions about what is and is not covered. Or are the liberals just upset because they found out that it wouldn't be them making the decision?
Irontruth wrote: It's amusing that you place the blame at ~1965 and completely fail to realize that it's 1865 is when the problem you're talking about started. The Civil War... The problems you are attributing to this go back much deeper and further than your current explanation.
Yes, yes. Let me explain.
Circa 1965 was the time when the pretense finally evaporated. I
ncome tax is another unfortunate case and it stems from the time of the First World War.
I get that there has been a slow erosion but there was also clear progress (slavery gonzo! Yeah?) until about 1965. Then progress is harder to see and the dissolution easier.
Irontruth wrote: The first two decades of the 20th century is when the government started to come in and mandate how companies treated workers. Well, there was a different mandate in effect before and after that point, usually delivered with the heavy end of a pinkertons club.
thejeff wrote: Were there other changes in voting rights in the 60s, I'm not thinking of? The rise of special interests. Only gotten worse since then. Prior to that it was a dull roar in the background of human affairs. Can you imagine a film like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington being made in earnest today? No, because, as a nation, we no longer take the responsibilities of citizenship seriously. OK, maybe the film could be made but it would get no Oscar nods.
Also on point (see my previous examples) is the symptom that outragious behavior is no longer seen as shameful. In fact, politicians (like Obama, Romney, Cheney, Clinton, etc.) pander to this lowest denominator because, even if they don't believe what they're saying, it gets them votes.
thejeff wrote: Or is this just general hippy-bashing? What are you talking about? Well, I'm not talking about core hippy habits like pot smoking (though one must wonder at people who enjoy drug use where the altered state is in-house referred to as "being stoned" or having a "head full of zombie". Because being hit in the head with rocks is such fun and zombies are known for clarity of thought. Do they even consider that the name "pot" is derived from "going to pot"?). Now back to the topic.
Let me put it to you this way:
By definition, with any given measure, half of all Americans are below average.
Assuming you think you're fully right on these issues and I'm wrong (or just a troll), well...
The fact that my vote counts as much as yours ought to give you pause. And, most importantly, it rather proves my point beyond dispute.
|
